Affiliates Forum

The LA Times is putting pressure on big companies that are advertising on adware companies and encouraging 'sneaky tactics'. Mercedes-Benz, Travelocity, Chase, Disney, Home Depot are all named in the article, with many of them contacted and questioned about it.

After The Times asked about the practices of Exact Advertising and 180Solutions, Commission Junction said it was going to stop doing business with both.

Blue-chip companies are sponsoring more than TV shows and golf tournaments to promote their products: They are inadvertently underwriting computer spyware too.

Larry Ingram found that out last month after spyware infested computers owned by Minnesota's Hennepin County. The uninvited software spewed ads for such companies as car maker Mercedes-Benz and online travel agency

Choking off the money will be one of the best ways to discourage adware. Plus, this is an angle where something can actually be done. The press should be encouraged to keep the heat on those financing this type of abuse.

Choking off the money will be one of the best ways to discourage adware.

Not gonna happen. Just like spam, as long as its profitable for the advertiser, they will continue to use it. The PR guys are just tasked with a response for the media that comes under the heading of "plausible deniability".

The arms race between browsers/blockers and ad networks seems to be continuing...

I have FireFox (which does a good job at blocking pop-ups), but recently pop-unders seem to be getting past the filter (TribalFusion seems to be the worst offender). I don't like it, but being a webmaster myself, I can understand the desire for a higher CPM.

Not strictly related, but I felt that it was worth sharing nonetheless.

While I can appreciate your candor on the subject, I think there is a valid distinction between the two.

First off, pop-ups are obviously be a by-product of spyware, so I think they sometimes fall into that category.

A lot of times, though, pop-ups (and pop-unders and interstitials and other increasingly intrusive forms of advertising) are often implemented at the server level. While this is still annoying, it doesn't drag down performance beyond the website displaying them. They are also (individually) much easier to avoid, though avoidance becomes harder if more web properties implement the ads server-side.

Spyware, on the other hand, is on the individual's computer, which means it stays with the user beyond the site that may have installed it. Spyware is much harder to avoid because most people don't know it's installed on their system, and most people don't know how to get rid of spyware after it's on their computer. I had a particularly nasty piece of spyware on my system a while ago, and it was a pain to uninstall, even though I consider myself very computer savvy. I can't imagine how much of a nightmare it must be to people who aren't computer nerds like me.

Big differences. What's already been mentioned plus adware/spyware usually pops advertising over my site or off my traffic, off SE results, off PPC advertising** etc. which can affect an affiliates income. Somebody putting some Fastclick on their site has no affect on me. The end result to the user is a pop-up ad but adware/spyware can also have a negative affect on the user's computer. The recent press is just another step to the eventual. Most adware will be gone in the future, the only ones that may stick around are ones where people actually go to the site and knowingly download and want the adware. Even then if that adware pops advertising over someone's site or off their traffic, they can run into trouble. The whole problem with this model is most people don't like it, over 75% in any study or article on the subject. Adware companies love it, merchants who use it love it, but the most important part of the equation, the end user is where the model breaks down. Not a very bright Adware future.

** You always read articles about click fraud but i never see too much talking about what happens after someone clicks a PPC ad and how Adware can affect that.

"There is a difference between spyware and popup advertising." I beg to differ. Pop ups are pop ups, and i hate them.

I didnt ask for the pop up ads no matter where it came from.

i dont see any difference.

There aren't many people that like popups. However, a website publisher/webmaster/owner can choose to run popups on their site or to not run popups on their site. One of the factors in this decision is how it will effect the overall success of their website. If popups will do more harm than good, then they don't run them.

Adware/Spyware takes this decsion away from the website owner. To a visitor that has no clue as to which popups come from spyware and which are part of the website, it just doesn't matter. They won't come back to that website. So there in lies the major difference. The spyware does irreperable harm to the image of the website without the website owner ever even knowing the damage has been done.

The hijacking of links on the page, or the insertion of additional links into the content amounts to blatant copyright violation as the spyware is copying and then repackaging another publisher's content for profit.

Cities enact ordinances to keep panhandlers away from store fronts. It would be nice to see something similar for websites.

Choking off the money will be one of the best ways to discourage adware.

Not gonna happen. Just like spam, as long as its profitable for the advertiser, they will continue to use it. The PR guys are just tasked with a response for the media that comes under the heading of "plausible deniability".

I don't think blue chip companies will knowingly place ads in spywares - they usually buy ads in bulk via agencies and middlemen.

Heck, we're a small company and we've been approached by agencies that specialize in placing these ads. None of the pitch mention anything about spywares, they're just reselling ad space in different websites.

Just for fun, we tracked one down - and despite assurances from the sales person, it was a spyware.

One copyright violation lawsuit is all it will take. Pinning down the violating party could be tricky, but perhaps one corporation out of all the hundreds might have the guts to do it and be hailed as the messiah of consumer protection.

However, the vicious circle of increasing levels of spyware and improving levels of security to deal with it keeps quite a lot of people in business.

Not much different in principle from the days when certain chemicals and materials were 'accepted', only to fall foul of major lawsuits tens of years later. (much less serious for the individual though of course).

------------------------------ "There is a difference between spyware and popup advertising." I beg to differ. Pop ups are pop ups, and i hate them.

I didnt ask for the pop up ads no matter where it came from.

i dont see any difference.

------------------------------

This is an entirely ludacris statement. A webmaster has the right to display popups if desired. When you visit his website, you are on his turf, on which he can display what he pleases. You have no right to 'ask' or not ask for popups on HIS site. That's like coming into someones home and complaining about the pictures displayed on their walls. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT. The only right you have is to close your eyes and not look at them, or in the sense of the internet, you have the right to get a popup blocker.

So make the distinction, a popup launched by a website owner, is not invading your turf. It's on his turf on which you are mearly a visitor. A visitor which has no rights to control his freedom to display ads. If you don't like them, do everyone a favor and act on your right to not surf the net.